Ilia Kostin
lawyer serving in the Main Department of Military Justice
The lawyer should have the ability to provide services during mobilization because the right to defense is part of justice and an integral right of the citizen. Another question is how this relates to military service. These changes were needed earlier. At the beginning of the war, many colleagues went to the military, and there wasn't even a question about suspending their lawyer's license. We didn't think we would survive. The leadership of the bar immediately fled the country. A little later, there was a decision that being on military service during a state of war would not be considered a violation of the incompatibility requirements for lawyers, but later this position was changed to a radically opposite one. Why? Well, firstly, the norm of the law is prescribed in this way, and secondly, it is an opportunity to include the repressive apparatus, because frontline soldiers did not remain silent about the fact that the National Bar Association of Ukraine is headed by Medvedchuk's associate Izovitova, who has monopolized self-government in the legal profession for over 10 years. But these are all cosmetic changes, and the law "On Advocacy" needs to be comprehensively amended. This includes the requirement of the European Commission.
Members of Parliament propose to prohibit holding concurrent positions not for all military personnel, but only for those who have signed a contract or are performing alternative (non-military) service.
The National Association of Lawyers of Ukraine, headed by the aforementioned Lydia Izovitova, criticized this bill and called it a “sham.”
Lawyer Artem Donetsk, whose membership in the National Association has already been suspended for 6 months, and who recently filed three separate complaints for failure to suspend membership during service in the Armed Forces, explains that currently the legislation does not actually prohibit combining service with legal practice, because the relevant law “On Advocacy” was adopted before the start of the war and the types of service were different at that time.
Back then, there was service by contract, conscript service, and alternative service - which involved work for those who, for example, due to religious or other beliefs, could not serve. When the war started, new types of service emerged, such as mobilization for a specific period (during martial law). Essentially, this initiative won't change anything, it will only resolve issues that, for some reason, still arise within the Bar Association due to their incorrect interpretation of existing laws. I consider such an initiative quite beneficial because currently, military personnel need legal assistance as often as medical assistance. And nobody would even think of prohibiting mobilized doctors from providing medical care to their comrades. These changes to the law could lay the groundwork for the formation of the Ukrainian military legal profession. We have a military prosecutor's office, military law enforcement, and we need military legal representation.
The relevant committee responsible for such matters is the Committee on Legal Policy, headed by Denis Maslov (“Servant of the People”). I head the subcommittee responsible for advocacy – Volodymyr Vatras (“Servant of the People”).
Vatras agrees that the legislation does not take into account new types of service and emphasizes regarding the mentioned bill that discussions will need to involve relevant organizations, including the aforementioned Bar Association, the Ministry of Justice, the Bar Association, and other relevant civil society organizations.
Volodymyr Vatras
Member of Parliament, "Servant of the People"
At first glance, the initiative is not entirely correct. The independence of the legal profession lies in ensuring that legal practice is incompatible with other types of activities, including military service. Imagine a situation where a military lawyer is subject to military regulations. Such subordination would affect their independence in defending rights. On the one hand, they would be bound by the rules of legal ethics, and on the other hand, by military statutes. They may be obliged to obey orders from their commander, which may not always be lawful. The commander could prohibit or order someone not to defend. This would undoubtedly impact effective defense. The lawyer would then lose their independence. While these proposed changes are not currently timely, this is my personal position rather than that of the subcommittee.
Earlier, the civic initiative “Golka” wrote about the monopolization of the legal profession in Ukraine by associates of Viktor Medvedchuk. This became possible due to the provisions of the Law “On Advocacy,” which were adopted during the time of the state traitor Viktor Yanukovych.
In January 2024, the Constitutional Court began considering a constitutional complaint from lawyer Viacheslav Pleskach. This complaint concerns the “serfdom” in the legal profession. Any lawyer must unconditionally be a member of the National Bar Association of Ukraine and pay dues. Those who are not in the association do not have the right to practice the profession.
